As far as doing something militarily, I'd say so for now. He has a pretty full plate with North Korea and that's where the logistical operations seem to be taking place.

Rugoz wrote:Maduro couldn't hope for a bigger fool in the White House.

Maduro clearly knows nothing about how economies work. He's even more clueless than Chavez.

MistyTiger wrote:Trump loves to talk big. Hopefully the Defense secretary can talk some sense into him.

Venezuela doesn't have a huge Al Qaeda/Taliban presence. It has poverty that was made worse by socialists interfering in the economy with price controls, etc. Eliminating the price controls will allow marginal price to exceed marginal cost and get the economy back to work.

Beren wrote:Kim Jong-un must be even more satisfied.

Mattis had some harsh words of his own for Kim Jong Un.

Mattis wrote:The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons...

... the regime's actions will continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates.

Kim Jong Un should take heed of the United Nations Security Council's unified voice, and statements from governments the world over, who agree the DPRK poses a threat to global security and stability...

While our State Department is making every effort to resolve this global threat through diplomatic means, it must be noted that the combined allied militaries now possess the most precise, rehearsed, and robust defensive and offensive capabilities on Earth.

...cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and destruction of its people.

Thus, we should all supoort a military intervention by Venezuela wherein Trump would be deposed and a more agreeable POTUS will be put into power.

Even though I do agree with the position of non-intervention , and respect your opinion , I still feel that I should point out that you committed the tu quoque logical fallacy . Even though Trump might very well be said to be misruling the United States of America , and especially as of late I have been somewhat wishing that Red Dawn were for real , and that the foreign coalition forces were to succeed in effecting regime change , Trump's arguable double standard still doesn't automatically invalidate a decision by his administration to intervene in foreign affairs through military invasion . But yeah , as much as Juche may not be my cup of tea , if the DPRK were to launch an invasion of America , possibly multilaterally , especially if Pres. Trump continues to impetuously antagonize other nations , I might possibly inclined to be convinced to collaborate with the occupation forces . Even more so if like in the movie I get to be issued a cool armband . If the Donald over reaches we just might see this situation become reality . , . Sort of like with the American coalition in Iraq , only with the roles reversed https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rm0tMA0e5I .

It sounds as if taking down Maduro would send a good message to Kim and secure the right to toilet paper for millions of people.

My term as President ended recently, I was pretty bummed about it. But I think the new president was probably more happy to become President than I am sad to lose it. The total happiness in the world increased. So, whatever.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you can see how your own country would benefit from some intervention by another country?

The UK isn't in that bad a way at present. The only future scenario I can think of that might merit it was if an ISIS or Boko Haram like organisation took over large sections of the muslim majority areas and for some unlikely reason the British Armed Forces were unable to annihilate them on their own. That's a pretty far fetched scenario though.

Looking back in history the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was basically a foreign intervention performed by the Dutch King William of Orange with the blessing of half the English country and parliament.. It is hard to say that intervention didn't turn out okay (though obviously it was disastrous for King James II and his supporters since they lost).

I get why you don't like interventions, the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan precipitated its own collapse. But if the US could survive the consequences of the Vietnam war but the USSR could not survive the consequences of its war in afghanistan that probably says more about the USSR than the merits of interventions.

Last edited by SolarCross on 13 Aug 2017 16:06, edited 1 time in total.

SolarCross wrote:The UK isn't in that bad a way at present. The only future scenario I can think of that might merit it was if an ISIS or Boko Haram like organisation took over large sections of the muslim majority areas and for some unlikely reason the British Armed Forces were unable to annihilate them on their own. That's a pretty far fetched scenario though.

Can you just answer the question? Thanks.

Since this situation is not happening in Venezuela, why should the US intervene?

Looking back in history the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was basically a foreign intervention performed by the Dutch King William of Orange with the blessing of half the English country and parliament.. It is hard to say that intervention didn't turn out okay.

And since Venezuela is not mired in the violent politics that typified Baroque England, this does not justify interventions.

I get why you don't like interventions, the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan precipitated its own collapse.

And the US intervention in Afghanistan led to Islamist rule in Afghanistan and 9/11. That worked out, right?

But if the US could survive the consequences of the Vietnam war but the USSR could not survive the consequences of its war in afghanistan that probably says more about the USSR than the merits of interventions.

Oh, you are just trying to change the subject again.

I find it interesting that all the people who support these interventions never want to be blessed with one themselves. It is almost as if it were a double standard.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since this situation is not happening in Venezuela, why should the US intervene?

Did you miss the part where I said that in this case the US probably shouldn't bother? I say just let Maduro's government fall on its own.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And since Venezuela is not mired in the violent politics that typified Baroque England, this does not justify interventions.

The exact issues are different but why is that relevant? You were trying to suggest that I wouldn't like it if the shoe was on the other foot. My answer is that I would. If I were a Venezualan I would take help from the US in this situation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And the US intervention in Afghanistan led to Islamist rule in Afghanistan and 9/11. That worked out, right?

It was the USSR's intervention that lead to the rise of the taliban because they lost. 911 was less a consequence of US support for the mujahadeen and more to do with US bases being sited in Saudi Arabia and its support for Israel. In Osama Bin Laden's own words that is why he and his organisation turned on the US.

911 lead to the US's own intervention in Afghanistan. So far that remains unresolved, so it is too early to say whether it will be for the good of Afghanistan people in general, whether they finally break the taliban and how much the effort will cost or hurt the US. So far it is not going too badly.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, you are just trying to change the subject again.

I find it interesting that all the people who support these interventions never want to be blessed with one themselves. It is almost as if it were a double standard.

Then you find your own imagination interesting. I would support an intervention in my home country if it was in the same situation as Venezuala now.

What if your country (chile?) was run by a "right wing" regime you didn't like would you support a foreign power with a ruling ideology aligned to your own intervening to restore a state of affairs more to your tastes?

Did you miss the part where I said that in this case the US probably shouldn't bother? I say just let Maduro's government fall on its own.

The exact issues are different but why is that relevant? You were trying to suggest that I wouldn't like it if the shoe was on the other foot. My answer is that I would. If I were a Venezualan I would take help from the US in this situation.

So you would support a foreign power when they come in and try to rule your country?

That seems odd. Do you also want to have the UK run by immigrants?

It was the USSR's intervention that lead to the rise of the taliban because they lost. 911 was less a consequence of US support for the mujahadeen and more to do with US bases being sited in Saudi Arabia and its support for Israel. In Osama Bin Laden's own words that is why he and his organisation turned on the US.

911 lead to the US's own intervention in Afghanistan. So far that remains unresolved, so it is too early to say whether it will be for the good of Afghanistan people in general, whether they finally break the taliban and how much the effort will cost or hurt the US. So far it is not going too badly.

Are you unaware that the CIA supported the Mujaheddin and other Islamists during the Cold War?

Why would it be good for the Afghani people to be run by Islamists?

Then you find your own imagination interesting. I would support an intervention in my home country if it was in the same situation as Venezuala now.

Why?

Do you enjoy having the wealth of your country taken abroad by foreign oppressors!

What if your country (chile?) was run by a "right wing" regime you didn't like would you support a foreign power with a ruling ideology aligned to your own intervening to restore a state of affairs more to your tastes?

The right wing dictatorship that ran my country was imposed by a foreign power. The US, actually. The same country that wants to do the same thing in Venezuela.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you would support a foreign power when they come in and try to rule your country?

That seems odd. Do you also want to have the UK run by immigrants?

It depends on the nature of that power and how well they rule. Good governance matters to me more than your republican parochial bigotry.

I'm English and from a certain parochial point of view we haven't had an English ruler since Queen Elizabeth I and really her family were the last in a long line of French speaking Danes, that history knows as the Normans. After her we had four Scots. After them we had a Dutchman and everyone after that was German... I am fine with that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you unaware that the CIA supported the Mujaheddin and other Islamists during the Cold War?

Why would it be good for the Afghani people to be run by Islamists?

Yes of course I am aware, and it was a good play. Afghanistan is muslim majority country, to argue against intervention, as you are, is to argue they should indeed be run by Islamists. I would be happy with intervening in Afghanistan to get rid of them. Yes the USSR was doing that but the USSR was a bigger problem than Islamists in Afghanistan. Supporting the Islamists in this case was helpful in combating a bigger problem.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why?

Do you enjoy having the wealth of your country taken abroad by foreign oppressors!

Maduro is destroying the national wealth quite well on his own. It is definitely possible that "foreign oppressors" in general can do that sort of thing, the Spanish looted all the gold out of South America for example. The US's record is not terrible in that regard, just look at some of the countries that the US successfully "oppressed": South Korea, West Germany, Japan...

Pants-of-dog wrote:The right wing dictatorship that ran my country was imposed by a foreign power. The US, actually. The same country that wants to do the same thing in Venezuela.

You do realise that you are arguing for another such dictatorship?

The US helped out Pinochet and his lot sure, and was the result so very bad for Chile? My question, which you avoided, however is would you have supported a foreign intervention by the USSR or Cuba or someone else to overthrow Pinochet?

See you are trying to make a narrative up that is self contradictory. Why not play straight just like me and admit that you support interventions which suit your agenda and oppose those that don't. In that one respect you are just like me and everyone else.

SolarCross wrote:The US helped out Pinochet and his lot sure, and was the result so very bad for Chile?

Having lived there for seven years I would say that the collective psychological trauma of the dictatorship still runs very deep.

The smashing of trade unions and general attitude towards labour has left some enduring and deep problems in terms of workplace culture and income inequality.

I knew some people who were involved in trials and executions of political prisoners. It was an unpleasant business. There are a dwindling band of people who still celebrate Pinochet, many of whom collaborated in some way with the regime and are in denial about their own guilt, but I think it fair to say that the majority of people regard it as a dark chapter in their history from which they wish to move on.

Also, books are incredibly expensive there due to high import taxes, with the result that only a small intellectual class actually read books. Contrast with neighbouring Argentina which is awash with high quality books for next to nothing.

SolarCross wrote:It depends on the nature of that power and how well they rule. Good governance matters to me more than your republican parochial bigotry.

Well, since US rule of Latin American puppet states has resulted in oppressive dictatorship and kleptocracies, it us stupid to argue that we should do that in order to prevent oppressive dictatorship and kleptocracies.

I'm English and from a certain parochial point of view we haven't had an English ruler since Queen Elizabeth I and really her family were the last in a long line of French speaking Danes, that history knows as the Normans. After her we had four Scots. After them we had a Dutchman and everyone after that was German... I am fine with that.

That's nice.

Yes of course I am aware, and it was a good play. Afghanistan is muslim majority country, to argue against intervention, as you are, is to argue they should indeed be run by Islamists.

No. If the US intervenes and puts Islamists in power, arguing for non-intervention is the exact opposite of arguing that Islamists should be in power.

I would be happy with intervening in Afghanistan to get rid of them.

Then you supported the Communists in Afghanistan during the Cold war?

Yes the USSR was doing that but the USSR was a bigger problem than Islamists in Afghanistan. Supporting the Islamists in this case was helpful in combating a bigger problem.

Oh, I see.

Intervention is good when you do it, but not when others do it. Got it.

Maduro is destroying the national wealth quite well on his own. It is definitely possible that "foreign oppressors" in general can do that sort of thing, the Spanish looted all the gold out of South America for example. The US's record is not terrible in that regard, just look at some of the countries that the US successfully "oppressed": South Korea, West Germany, Japan...

Why are you deliberately trying to confuse things like the end of WWII with neo-colonialism, especially when they have such different objectives and dynamics?

The US helped out Pinochet and his lot sure, and was the result so very bad for Chile?

Yes. Unless you think a government that murders children is good.

My question, which you avoided, however is would you have supported a foreign intervention by the USSR or Cuba or someone else to overthrow Pinochet?

No. That should be obvious.

See you are trying to make a narrative up that is self contradictory. Why not play straight just like me and admit that you support interventions which suit your agenda and oppose those that don't. In that one respect you are just like me and everyone else.

Because I am logically consistent and don't think that being a hypocrite is a good deal, even in foreign relations.